Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'Arcy

• Decision Date: 07 December 1915
• Docket Number: 2627.
• Citation: 229 F. 398
• Parties: VENTILATED CUSHION & SPRING CO. v. D'ARCY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

229 F. 398

VENTILATED CUSHION & SPRING CO. v. D'ARCY.

No. 2627.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

December 7, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan; Clarence W. Sessions, Judge.

Suit in equity by the Ventilated Cushion & Spring Company against Frank P. D'Arcy. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

PATENTS 328-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- SPRING CUSHION.

The Stotts patent, No. 840,522, for a spring cushion for automobiles, cars, etc., is strictly limited by the prior art, which shows, in patents for beds and cushions, all of its elements, although not in precisely the same combination and by the proceedings in the Patent Office, to the specific structure described, or its full equivalent. As so limited held not infringed.

L. V Moulton, of Grand Rapids, Mich., W. R. Rummler, of Chicago Ill., and Cyrus W. Rice, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellant.

F. L. Chappell, of Kalamazoo, Mich., for appellee.

Before WARRINGTON, KNAPPEN, and DENISON, Circuit Judges.

WARRINGTON Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the decree in an infringement suit in which the bill was dismissed. The patent in suit, No. 840,522, was issued to E. O. Stotts January 8, 1907, and through mesne assignments the appellant ultimately (August 8, 1907) succeeded to the title. The suit was commenced June 25, 1908, and the patent and all rights under it were acquired by the Jackson Spring Cushion Company April 16, 1913, when an order was entered authorizing the Jackson Company to prosecute the suit for its use in the name of the plaintiff. The pleadings are in form substantially the same as they usually are in patent cases, where issues of infringement and lack of invention through anticipation are joined.

The patent relates to spring structures. The main object of the patentee was to produce a structure which would be adapted particularly for cushions in seats of automobiles and other cars or carriages where the springs might be subjected to sudden and violent jarring. The exterior form of the structure comprises three sides of a quadrangle, a curved rear side, and the dimensions of an ordinary automobile cushion. The interior structure consists of two sets of spiral springs, one set being nearly twice the height of the other, and all are disposed in rows. According to the drawings and the exhibits in evidence, the long springs are each in the form of an hour-glass, and are disposed in four rows, running from front to rear, and parallel with the two straight sides of the structure; the upper and lower coils of the outside rows are each fastened to the adjacent parts of two border-frame wires which surround the structure, one being maintained in the plane of the top surface and the other in that of the bottom surface of the structure; the inner portions of such outside rows of coils are each fastened at the bottom to straight wires, called braces, disposed lengthwise along such rows, and extending from the front to a point near the curved rear side of the border-frame wire, which is maintained, as stated, at the bottom of the structure; and the outer portions of each of the lower coils of the two interior rows are fastened to straight wires (braces), which are disposed between such rows similarly to the other braces just mentioned. The short springs, which are each frusto-conical in shape, are disposed in three rows, occupying the spaces between the lower coils, and also portions of the spaces embraced within such coils, of the adjacent long springs. The short springs are all fastened at their lower and upper coils, the former to the lower coils of the adjacent long springs, and the latter to connecting wires disposed upon the upper coils.

We have thus attempted to describe a model (an exhibit) of plaintiff's spring structure, called 'Rough Rider,' which, it will be seen, differs somewhat from the structure illustrated by the drawings accompanying the specification; still these drawings will serve to illustrate both of such structures. The drawings follow:

(Image Omitted)

(Image Omitted) It is stated in the specification that Fig. 1 'is a top plan of a cushion spring constructed according to this invention. ' Fig. 2 is an end elevation, Fig. 3 a plan showing the structure of the bottom, and Figs. 4 and 5 forms of attaching-clip designed to connect the adjacent wires. The numerals indicate: 1, the long springs; 2, the short springs; 3, a metal wrapping to fasten the bases of adjacent springs; 4, the lower border-frame wire; 5, wire-clip to fasten the base of each of the outer springs to the border-frame wire; 6, cross-wires, called a plurality of braces, which, with the wire-clip (7) to fasten such braces to the springs as shown in Fig. 3, are said to form a rigid base for the cushion; 8, the upper border-frame wire; 9, short helical springs connecting the top coils of the inner long springs as shown in Fig. 1; 10, a wire frame disposed along and fastened by clips (11) to the top coils of the short springs as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

The specification in substance states that the long springs ordinarily support the weight upon the cushion, but in case of a jar these springs at times yield sufficiently to bring the weight of the passenger upon the short springs; some of the witnesses saying that the short springs are to prevent what is called 'grounding,' and the consequent discomforts, when traveling over a rough road. It is to be observed that the rough rider, above described, appears to be the plaintiff's preferred spring device; and that structure differs from the one shown in the drawings in these particulars; The braces are disposed perpendicularly to the front face instead of the sides; the helical springs (9) and the rear long spring of each of the outside rows are omitted; the omission of the helical springs is claimed to be justified, in view of the claims in suit; but metal sheet bands are added to and used to stiffen the bottom of the rough rider structure.

Judge Sessions, who decided the case below, was of the opinion that in view of the prior art, and the history of the patent itself as it is shown by the file wrapper, the claims were entitled only to a narrow construction, and consequently that the patent was not infringed. Concededly the component parts of the patented structure are old, but it is insisted that the structure as a whole is new. We assume, without deciding, that the patent is valid, and so shall confine the inquiry to the scope of the invention. The combinations of the claims in suit all concern a spring-cushion, and the elements may be conveniently considered according as they are there grouped and varied. The claims in issue are 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10. A fair understanding of all may be gathered from the first, with an accompanying statement showing in what respects the others differ from it. Claim 1 reads:

'In a spring-cushion, the combination of a plurality of spiral springs arranged in a plurality of rows, a second set of spiral springs of less height than those of the first set, and located in the spaces between the springs of the first set, the bottom convolutions of the springs of the first set being in contact with and secured to the bottom convolutions of adjacent springs of the second set, and co-operating to form a wire-network base.'

The second claim is the same, except that it adds:

'A plurality of braces extending along said rows and fastened to said bottom convolutions to form a supporting-base for said springs.'

The sixth claim substitutes two sets of 'spiral furniture springs' for the springs mentioned in the first claim, and adds to the first claim:

'A system of wire bracing extending across said bottom convolutions secured thereto and co-operating therewith to form a stiff supporting-base of wire network.'

The ninth claim differs from the first only in the statement that the form of the second set of springs is 'frusto-conical.' The tenth claim substitutes a 'top frame yieldingly supported thereby' for the 'plurality of rows' specified in the first claim; also, as respects the second set of springs, it states that each shall have 'its bottom convolution extending into the space bounded by the periphery of the bottom convolution of one of the springs of the first set,' and, after providing for the 'wire-network base' as in the first, adds:

'Said springs and top being so disposed as to permit the top to be depressed a considerable distance without resistance by the second set and to cause such resistance when said top is further depressed.'

Quite a number of observations are to be made upon these claims with respect to the prior art. In the first place, the idea of employing two sets of spiral springs of different heights for the purpose of adding to the normal resistance of the first set, also that of the second set when necessary, and of so adjusting such means of resistance according to the different weights that might be imposed, was disclosed in patent No. 83,489, to Hacker, in 1868. True, Hacker's invention concerned a 'new and improved spring bed-bottom.' However, apart from the obvious analogy between spring-cushions and spring bed-bottoms having similar springs, it is strenuously urged here that the excellence of plaintiff's rough rider spring-cushion is shown through its adoption by the Pullman Company for alternate use as seats or beds in its sleeping cars; and, besides, the sixth claim distinctly calls for 'spiral furniture springs.' Nothing more than Hacker's specification is needed to give point to the present relevancy of his invention:

'The spiral springs, A, being shorter, are only brought into action when the longer springs are compressed to a level with the

...